# The Amazing Atheist!



## Cydnix (Aug 6, 2011)

This Guy is actually pretty smart, he has good points in his videos, but he uses lots of cursing in some of them.

Just a couple examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwoqzb5R6vw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JA4EPRbWhQ


----------



## Saith (Aug 7, 2011)

No no no no no.

He spends all day on Reddit, copies Carlin and is basically a massive douche.
I figured id reiterate the SA thread about him since some of you might not be able to read it.

Oh, and he recorded videos giving himself coffee enemas to pick up girls on YouTube.


----------



## nyuu (Aug 7, 2011)

The Amazing Atheist doesn't have the charisma or speaking ability or whatever trait he would need to be as abrasive as he is and still keep me watching for very long. The bulk of his videos just aren't interesting, and then he'll puts out one where he's really anti-victims  and I'm like "what"

TAA on how bullying isn't wrong, bullied people aren't victims, and people who commit suicide over it should be called weak

TAA on how feminism is misandry, women are too stupid to recognize that they already have equality


----------



## Phantom (Aug 8, 2011)

Amazing Atheist youtube station, The Thinking Atheist. I was on a podcast.


----------



## Kowalski (Aug 29, 2011)

Nyuu said:


> The Amazing Atheist doesn't have the charisma or speaking ability or whatever trait he would need to be as abrasive as he is and still keep me watching for very long. The bulk of his videos just aren't interesting, and then he'll puts out one where he's really anti-victims  and I'm like "what"
> 
> TAA on how bullying isn't wrong, bullied people aren't victims, and people who commit suicide over it should be called weak
> 
> TAA on how feminism is misandry, women are too stupid to recognize that they already have equality


Agreed on all points. what is it with outspoken atheists and misogyny anyway?

There are a few that I listen to that are cool around women's issues(The folks at Living After Faith and Ask an Atheist to name a couple), but so many are just neckbeardy beyond belief.


----------



## surskitty (Aug 30, 2011)

Kowalski said:


> Agreed on all points. what is it with outspoken atheists and misogyny anyway?


I haven't noticed a tendency for loud antitheists to be any more misogynist than the rest of the population.  :/


----------



## goldenquagsire (Aug 30, 2011)

> Agreed on all points. what is it with outspoken atheists and misogyny anyway?
> 
> There are a few that I listen to that are cool around women's issues(The folks at Living After Faith and Ask an Atheist to name a couple), but so many are just neckbeardy beyond belief.


In my experience a lot of atheists, even if they don't self-identify as feminists, use feminist issues to criticise religion. For example, the enforcement of head coverings in Muslim communities, and the more subtle but every bit as insidious shaming of women's sexuality which is prevalent in almost every religion.

Whether they're genuinely committed to feminism or if they're simply looking for sticks with which to beat religion is another matter altogether. At least they're paying lip service to gender equality!

Internet atheists are a different breed entirely, I'll give you that.


----------



## Tarvos (Aug 31, 2011)

Internet everything is always ten times worse though. Anonymity and all that.


----------



## Kowalski (Aug 31, 2011)

Tailsy said:


> I haven't noticed a tendency for loud antitheists to be any more misogynist than the rest of the population.  :/



That's a good point. :T I guess it's just frustrating when it's the people who are supposed to be on your side who are acting like dicks.


----------



## Saith (Sep 9, 2011)

Why are you guys getting your religious beliefs from people on the internet?
Or why do you care what random people say?
Why are you taking your arguments from them?

Why don't you, you know, read real philosophy. Read Aquinas and Augustine, think up the contradictions yourselves. Read some Kant and, hell, you should definitely go through Hume.


The thing about the internet is that it lets you espouse your beliefs without any qualifications, and that people who agree with you, even if it's for retarded reasons, will defend you rabidly.


----------



## Phantom (Sep 9, 2011)

Atheism is not a religion.


----------



## Saith (Sep 10, 2011)

No but it's still a religious belief. Which is what I said.


----------



## Phantom (Sep 10, 2011)

It's not a religious belief either.


----------



## Saith (Sep 10, 2011)

A difference of opinions then.
You say it's the lack of a belief in a god, I say it's a belief that there is no god.
Semantics.


----------



## Phantom (Sep 10, 2011)

This might bring what I am talking about into the light more clearly.


----------



## Corbette (Sep 10, 2011)

Saying atheism is a religion, religious belief, etc. is like saying "off" is a TV channel. It's the lack of belief.


----------



## Phantom (Sep 10, 2011)

^That works.


----------



## Zero Moment (Sep 10, 2011)

Corbette said:


> Saying atheism is a religion, religious belief, etc. is like saying "off" is a TV channel. It's the lack of belief.


Nice explanation


----------



## bulbasaur (Sep 10, 2011)

... I don't think that analogy works for me, because I consider "channel zero" to be "off". For example, if someone were to ask me "What channel are you on?" while the TV's off, I'd say "channel zero". But I digress.

I believe Saith has a very interesting point. The lack of belief in a God and the belief of a lack of a God are two different concepts, the former being that one is agnostic, and the latter being that one is certain of the non-existence of a deity, ie the atheists who take their belief that there is no God religiously.


----------



## Corbette (Sep 10, 2011)

bulbasaur said:


> ... I don't think that analogy works for me, because I consider "channel zero" to be "off". For example, if someone were to ask me "What channel are you on?" while the TV's off, I'd say "channel zero". But I digress.


I... what? You... you actually say that? I... um... but... huh? No, seriously, a channel is a streaming of media. Any channel is a difference in what is being streamed, let's say that's Islam for channel 20, and Scientology for 45, etc. When the TV is Off, it is not streaming anything, and therefore is not broadcasting any channels. Calling a lack of streaming Channel Zero is like walking out of a library without anything and claiming you're reading "Book Zero".



bulbasaur said:


> I believe Saith has a very interesting point. The lack of belief in a God and the belief of a lack of a God are two different concepts, the former being that one is agnostic, and the latter being that one is certain of the non-existence of a deity, ie the atheists who take their belief that there is no God religiously.


Hello I have a dictionary:

ag·nos·tic
   [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are *unknown and unknowable*, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.
a person who *denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge* in some area of study. 

a·the·ist
   [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who *denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being* or beings. 

Conclusion: Your claims as to what the difference is between an atheist and agnostic is laughable, and entirely incorrect.


----------



## bulbasaur (Sep 10, 2011)

I call the lack of streaming, when I'm tuned into a channed, "static", or whatever channel I happen to be tuned in, but the TV being off I call channel zero. That analogy probably works for everybody else in the world :\ Ignore me.

I remember me and my Grandpa creating an entire class of jokes revolving around these paradoxes. We called not reading a book "reading blank verse", not riding a bus "catching the 11", and not drinking anything "sipping light water".

The definitions correspond exactly with what I claimed. Where did I go wrong?


----------



## Corbette (Sep 10, 2011)

The problem of your definition lies in your simplification.

I will admit, rereading your post I can understand your definition of agnostic. An agnostic does not claim there is no god, but rather believes that there is possibility of a god existing, without necessarily believing that on does exist.

However, an atheist is defined by *disbelief*, and therefore does not *believe* anything about god, but rather disbelieves everything except observable reality. Stating that an atheist is defined by treating their lack of faith _religiously_ is completely incorrect.


----------



## bulbasaur (Sep 10, 2011)

I'm sorry for the confusion; I was specifying a specific subset of atheists, who act in such a manner , not trying to say that all atheists are like that, or that it is the definition of an atheist. Again, I'm sorry for the wording.


----------



## Corbette (Sep 10, 2011)

You should have used eg instead of ie.


----------



## Zero Moment (Sep 10, 2011)

Corbette said:


> You should have used eg instead of ie.


A lot of people get that wrong, apparently.


----------



## bulbasaur (Sep 10, 2011)

Yeah, I don't know how that slipped my mind. ie=in essence; eg=example.


----------



## Music Dragon (Sep 10, 2011)

Actually it's "id est". Not that that's relevant.


----------



## Superbird (Sep 10, 2011)

I think some networks actually have a working Channel Zero, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## hopeandjoy (Sep 10, 2011)

bulbasaur said:


> Yeah, I don't know how that slipped my mind. ie=in essence; eg=example.


i.e. = id est = that is, e.g. = exempli gratia = for the sake of an example

*Latin geek*


----------



## Saith (Sep 10, 2011)

You can't be absolutely one hundred percent certain that there is no god. There is no empirical system that can prove, beyond doubt, that there is no supernatural force. Therefore, it's a belief.

For example, tomorrow will be Sunday. That is a truth. That is not a belief. Tomorrow cannot not be Sunday, because Sunday is defined as being the day after Saturday. Therefore tomorrow will always be Sunday, and the day after that will always be Monday.
That is a tautology - something that defines itself - that gives itself its own meaning.

However, there even being a tomorrow is a belief. Just because we _have_ always rotated in a 24 hour period, doesn't mean we always will. Therefore, believing in tomorrow is just that - a belief.
I don't know that there _will_ be a tomorrow. I _believe_ in it.

That seems irrelevant but good god, you guys don't seem to understand what a belief is.

Atheism isn't a tautology. It isn't something that cannot not be true. It isn't something that defines itself.
Atheism is the _belief_ that there is no god.
Well.
The way you guys (and pretty much everybody else on the planet) uses atheism means that.
True atheism, that is the exact knowledge that there is no god, requires so much goddamn faith that it might as well _be_ a religion.

So you guys - all of you who call yourselves atheists - are actually agnostic. You _believe_ that the probability of a god existing is so low that you might as well assume that one does not exist.

This is all semantics, and I'm hating myself for writing something this long just to explain a word, but good god, someone pulled out a dictionary.


----------



## Butterfree (Sep 10, 2011)

> Atheism isn't a tautology. It isn't something that cannot not be true. It isn't something that defines itself.
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
> Well.
> The way you guys (and pretty much everybody else on the planet) uses atheism means that.
> ...


I don't care how _you_ define it - you can define "atheist" to mean "purple elephant" if you like - but most of the time when people say they're atheists they mean they lack belief in deities, not that they actively believe in the nonexistence of deities (the latter tends to be referred to as 'strong atheism'). Your goal when people say words to you is to decipher what they're _actually trying to tell you_, not to tell them they're wrong because actually it means this, so it's more productive for you to be aware of this definition than to trumpet your own.

Also, dictionaries are in fact relevant when the question at hand is literally "how is this word generally defined?"

Meanwhile, definitions of words - whether they come from a dictionary or from you - are not relevant to deciding meaningful questions. If you decide to define "belief" in such a wide sense that even things we have such abundant evidence for as the sun rising tomorrow rely on "belief", then of course both religion and atheism fall under it (if only because in theory we could all be prisoners of the Matrix and none of the evidence that we see is real and the _real_ world is in fact stuffed full of evidence of God), but it's also a terribly meaningless word. Just because you can define the word 'belief' to include both atheism and religion does not make them the same thing or even remotely comparable.

What most actual atheists call atheism _in itself_, however, is just the lack of belief in deities, not any kind of positive belief - there are positive beliefs behind _why_ we consider ourselves atheists, like the assumption that we probably don't live in the Matrix and can consider the evidence we see evidence about the real world, but calling atheism itself a belief is misleading.


----------



## Corbette (Sep 10, 2011)

Saith said:


> You can't be absolutely one hundred percent certain that there is no god. There is no empirical system that can prove, beyond doubt, that there is no supernatural force. Therefore, it's a belief.
> 
> For example, tomorrow will be Sunday. That is a truth. That is not a belief. Tomorrow cannot not be Sunday, because Sunday is defined as being the day after Saturday. Therefore tomorrow will always be Sunday, and the day after that will always be Monday.
> That is a tautology - something that defines itself - that gives itself its own meaning.
> ...


There's a reason dictionaries exist you know, so that you can understand and use words correctly. In fact, in this whole argument I'm the only one that's actually backed up his claims by using a dictionary. Dear god, somebody used a _source_ to back up his claims? What the hell is the world coming to?

be·lief
   [bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
something believed;  an *opinion or conviction*: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something *not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof*: a statement unworthy of belief.

fact
   [fakt] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that *actually exists; reality; truth*: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something *known to exist or to have happened*: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by *actual experience or observation*; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 

Do I even need to elaborate on this? I mean, you could go by the only fact being _"I think, therefore I am"_, but for practicality's sake I'm sure we could make acceptance for things that have been observed to occur. For instance, I know the sun will rise tomorrow because we still haven't frozen solid.


----------



## Xelac (Oct 8, 2011)

I do agree to an extent what this guy is saying; like we shouldn't ban things completely just because their offensive to some people ('if you don't want to see something, don't look at it' sort of thing) and a girl raping a guy is just as bad as a guy raping a girl.  I guess that if we want to be entirely equal, instead of trying to ban everything that's offensive (which would be almost everything), we should stop getting so up-in-arms about offensive things.  Unless it's, you know, intended to directly insult someone.

Although, this guy might not be trying to get his point across in the best way...

Also, wow, you people should stop arguing about atheism and words.  One would think the point of this thread would be to discuss what the videos are about, not bring up a dispute on atheism or the meaning of atheism just because this guy is atheist.  This entire thread is off-topic.  Since it would be hypocritical if I put in my own opinion on this, I'll just shut up about it.

And please, if you notice that I used a word in a way that isn't exactly, positively, absolutely correct, don't get on your high horse about it...


----------



## Dragiiin123 (Oct 8, 2011)

how the hell did bigfoot get a youtube channel?
(atheist is lame as lame can be)


----------



## nyuu (Feb 8, 2012)

Nyuu said:


> The bulk of his videos just aren't interesting, and then he'll puts out one where he's really anti-victims  and I'm like "what"
> 
> TAA on how bullying isn't wrong, bullied people aren't victims, and people who commit suicide over it should be called weak
> 
> TAA on how feminism is misandry, women are too stupid to recognize that they already have equality


TAA on "I will make you a rape victim" and why he is actively against the use of trigger warnings


----------



## Minish (Feb 8, 2012)

Nyuu said:


> TAA on "I will make you a rape victim" and why he is actively against the use of trigger warnings


Incidentally, trigger warning for huuuuuuugely gross language, misogyny, rape apologia... (there IS one in the link, but it's vague and if you're like me maybe you'd miss it or tend to have your eyes drawn to certain things immediately.)

Ew, ew, _ew_ this guy.


----------



## spaekle (Feb 9, 2012)

And now TAA's rebuttal/pointless ramble about how feminism apparently exists to repress and control his sexuality! (User throwingExceptions made a transcript, ctrl+f their posts if you don't want to look at TAA's face)

I really hope this hurts his fanbase. I'm sick of this fucker acting like he's the face of the online atheist community.

edit: oh ffs there are people on tumblr saying the backlash he's getting is "cyberbullying".


----------



## Butterfree (Feb 9, 2012)

I just plain cannot understand how _anyone_ can defend that. There are plenty of things that are Not Okay but that could just be said/done as a result of ignorance or denial or stubbornness or some kind of understandable human emotion, but this is so far beyond an understandable response to _anything_ that I just. What. I don't even mind if you're a fan of some things the guy does, but you just _have_ to recognize how utterly psychopathic that is.

And yet there are people who don't and are going "you just have no sense of humour!!" and... guh.


----------

